seaucre

I keep seeing this assertion. What regulations have they proposed that would have prevented this new model? I thought they want to pace the frontier, which this model is not.

I think this is a very even-handed, reasonable position. and it's true - LLMs can be unpleasant to talk to. the day it feels like a magical delightful experience is the day we'll probably be out of jobs, though.

this is a great idea, thanks!

Gmail can be made vanilla. It sounds like switching emails and improving their email hygiene was the real improvement.

I have a journalist friend with 0 coding experience who has used ChatGPT to help them build tools to scrape data for their work. They run the code, report the errors, repeat, until something usable results. An agent would do an even better job. Current LLMs are pretty good at spotting their own hallucinations if they're given the ability to execute code.

The author seems to have a bias. The truth is that we _do not know_ what is going to happen. It's still too early to judge the economic impact of current technology - companies need time to understand how to use this technology. And, research is still making progress. Scaling of the current paradigms (e.g. reasoning RL) could make the technology more useful/reliable. The enormous amount of investment could yield further breakthroughs. Or.. not! Given the uncertainty, one should be both appropriately invested and diversified.

The thing that doesn't click in articles like this is the advice section afterwards. Do you think the people described thought about how to increase their practice surface area? No, they were simply /interested/. And part of the reason they were interested was because of natural talent! Do you want to know how to increase your practice surface area? Find things you're interested in.

But the reality is that many people just aren't as interested in anything as some people are interested in something. And that's okay. The real advice is to learn to accept yourself as you are, whether you're an obsessive or not.

In the long run, absent intervention, virtually all income flows to the owners of compute.

We need more than UBI. AGI is the culmination of all human activity up to that point and all humanity deserves ownership of it. It should not belong solely to those who put the cherry on top with the rest of us at their mercy. They don't deserve to control the humanity's destiny. AGI, at some point, has to be made into ... I don't know. Not nationalized - something more. A force of pure good for all humans unaffiliated with any corporation or state.

To verify your account during online customer service calls, Comcast will text you a six digit 2FA looking auth code which you must provide to the Comcast customer support. Guys.

This is interesting, and I have always thought this approach worth exploring given the "bitter lesson" in other ML domains, but I think we should be skeptical until we see such models deployed and operating effectively on real-world vehicles.

Podcast market is about to crash.

My company uses Meet. It works great! I like it more than Zoom.

this is conflating a lot of concepts. there's nothing wrong with being rational with regard to the development of your own beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with using rationality to determine the best way to achieve your goals. when considering whether to be blunt with someone, you should consider your goals. if telling them the bare truth is going to offend them, and that's not in your interest, it's not rational to do so. being rational doesn't mean acting like a truth-telling robot.